On Jun 12, 2005, at 6:15 AM, G. Ken Holman wrote:
I've been anxious to find implementations of relative keep strength in
order to improve the presentation of the annexes of my XSL-FO book,
but I haven't seen any yet. I would have liked to help Alex by citing
an implementation, but I didn't have anything to contribute to his
question.
That's a huge bummer... ...and what I saw when I perused the compliance
of many
of the XSL vendors/implementations.
I believe both interpretations of keep-together="always" are allowed
given this
sentence in section 4.8:
If not all of a set of keep conditions of equal strength can be
satisfied, then
some maximal satisfiable subset of conditions of that strength must
be satisfied
(together with all break conditions and maximal subsets of stronger
keep conditions, if any).
So, an implementation can choose to violate the keep-together if it
can't possibly
satisfy the condition (e.g. the area will fit on no page) as maximal
subset of satisfiable
could mean the empty set. In that sense, breaking across pages would
be an acceptable
solution if the content does not fit. It would be better for
interoperability that
always meant always.
-- Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of
the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."
Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--